The 'Dark Ages' Weren't as Dark as We Thought • Hacker News Board

Re: The 'Dark Ages' Weren't as Dark as We Thought

#231

Post by rgblambda » Thu, Apr 25, 2019, 8:34 AM UTC

heraclius wrote: post #152

btilly wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Roman Empire's collapse was more drawn out than that. The Empire split into Eastern and Western empires under Constantine. The Eastern half got renamed to the Byzantine Empire and it lasted until the successful Ottoman conquest in 1453. This is not to be confused with the Holy Roman Empire which was not holy, nor Roman, nor a true empire. But which survived until Napoleon conquered it in 1806.

The Byzantines not call themselves Byzantines; they considered themselves Roman. See a helpful answer on Reddit¹ which notes an episode in which the Byzantines imprisoned an envoy for calling their emperor that of the Greeks. It would of course be obtuse to call the Byzantine Empire the Roman Empire, but the renaming was after 1453. ¹ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ak435w/did_t...

During the Greek war of Independence I believe, children on a small island in the Aegean ran out to see the Greek soldiers who landed. A reporter asked them "why do you want to see them". The children replied "to see what the Hellenes(Greeks) look like". The reporter confused said "but you are Hellenes". The children laughed and said "no, we are Romanes".

Re: The 'Dark Ages' Weren't as Dark as We Thought

#232

Post by coldtea » Thu, Apr 25, 2019, 8:48 AM UTC

dpark wrote: post #80

foldr wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Writing style is a matter of taste. The blunt "as spoken" style is just as much an affect as some of its more flowery alternatives.

I'm assuming you're using "an affect" in the sense of "an affectation" or "affected" here, in which case, no. Plainness, simplicity, straightforwardness are words that would describe "as spoken" writing. They are also literally antonyms of "affect" in this context, which would mean pretentiousness, artificiality, pomposity.

>Plainness, simplicity, straightforwardness are words that would describe "as spoken" writing. They are also literally antonyms of "affect" in this context, which would mean pretentiousness, artificiality, pomposity.

"Spoken writing" can be just as artificial and pretentious -- e.g. upper class writers writing as if they grew up in da hood. Or people dumbing down their language to sell more.

How we speak with a friend, and how we write, doesn't have to share the same language or tone or expressions or vocabulary even. Spoken is a stream of consciousness that we express in real time. Written is forever, so we have time to refine what we write, go deeper, be more artistic, add flourishes, and so on. This is not the same as "being obscure for being obscure's sake".

To make an analogy, what you ask for, in photography terms would be "all photography should be real life documentary-style scenes".

In fact, even "spoken" changes form all the time: you don't talk to your bong buddy the same as you talk to your parents, or spouse, or the same way you give a lecture as when you casual chat over coffee, or when you teach students. Tone changes, expression changes, vocabulary changes, level of difficulty changes, etc.

Re: The 'Dark Ages' Weren't as Dark as We Thought

#233

Post by luk_hol » Thu, Apr 25, 2019, 8:58 AM UTC

agent008t wrote: post #226

scarmig wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't compare Britain in the post-Roman area with Rome at the height of empire. London in the "Dark Ages" didn't have aqueducts. But Londinium was part of the periphery of the empire, and it also never had aqueducts. There's not that much information to be gained by cherry picking the elements of the central core of the Roman Empire and asking why they weren't present in far flung areas in the post-Roman era. Ske…

The more primitive the society, the healthier skeletons you will find. Because in a primitive society only the healthiest and the fittest can survive. Whereas an advanced society can take care of the weak and the sick.

That's interesting. But do you have some data to back up your claim or is this just your guess? Because there are two effects at play here: on one hand a kind of a survivorship bias that you mention and on the other hand a positive effect of a healthier environment on a human body. These go against each other and I don't find it obvious to see which one is stronger.

After a quick search I would say the latter is more important here: what we observe from the bones are things like a quality of nutrition (e.g. vitamin deficiencies) or effects of some illnesses. Inadequate nutrition signals poor living condition and illnesses affect even the most "gifted" individuals (don't forget that hardship selects also for other traits than just a good immunity).

Re: The 'Dark Ages' Weren't as Dark as We Thought

#234

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Apr 25, 2019, 8:59 AM UTC

ABCLAW wrote: post #75

EliRivers wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having read the article, I disagree. What "style" of writing? The sentences aren't excessive, the language is all fairly common (the author even takes pleasure in simplifying "scramasax", clearly inviting us to take pleasure in it as well). What's wrong with it? It's not meant to be a list of purely literal facts. It's entertaining and a pleasure to read. As for Paul Graham's opinion piece; well, that's just silly. S…

The first paragraph of the quoted piece is a nightmare. The first sentence of the second and third paragraph are poorly drafted as well. In the rest, the verbose recounting fits the theme and does not distract from the point. As a writing exercise, let me re-write the piece: "What happened during the Middle Ages is unclear and the evidence we use to understand it is contradictory. Reviews depict the period as one fil…

[deleted]

Re: The 'Dark Ages' Weren't as Dark as We Thought

#235

Post by EliRivers » Thu, Apr 25, 2019, 9:03 AM UTC

ABCLAW wrote: post #75

EliRivers wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having read the article, I disagree. What "style" of writing? The sentences aren't excessive, the language is all fairly common (the author even takes pleasure in simplifying "scramasax", clearly inviting us to take pleasure in it as well). What's wrong with it? It's not meant to be a list of purely literal facts. It's entertaining and a pleasure to read. As for Paul Graham's opinion piece; well, that's just silly. S…

The first paragraph of the quoted piece is a nightmare. The first sentence of the second and third paragraph are poorly drafted as well. In the rest, the verbose recounting fits the theme and does not distract from the point. As a writing exercise, let me re-write the piece: "What happened during the Middle Ages is unclear and the evidence we use to understand it is contradictory. Reviews depict the period as one fil…

The first paragraph of the quoted piece is a nightmare.

Mmm... use of the word "nightmare" to criticise something that's discussing the dark ages, where the critique is about just that kind of skill level, but then you go on to present a junior grade summary. Deep troll or accidental writing ability? Too close to call.

But that illuminates a fundmental part of the problem here. To many on both sides of the page, much writing is also a game, to be played by the reader and the author. It's meant to be fun, but if one doesn't realise it's a game to be played and that the game is itself another layer of meaning, one will simply end up getting annoyed, wondering why the author didn't just present a plain list of unadorned facts.

By all means, don't play the game if you don't want to, or critique the game as one plays - point out literary shots that didn't get over the line, or cross-language allusions that are playing a bit fast and loose with etymology.

But to see the game being played and tell people to stop playing it? That's not right.

Re: The 'Dark Ages' Weren't as Dark as We Thought

#236

Post by wallace_f » Thu, Apr 25, 2019, 10:49 AM UTC

Marazan wrote: post #210

wallace_f wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I suspect it will die a slow death, just like the 'The Civil War wasn't about slavery' schtick. The dark ages I seem to have a more-clear picture of: derth of historical record, rise of Christianity, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, technological progress, and unfortunate disease, all each contributed, and amalgamated into the public conscious of defining the era as 'dark.' The civil war thing is really confusing…

The state's right they were fighting for was the right to keep slaves. It is super clear, the states say it in their succession documents. Claiming it is about abstract states rights and not slavery is Lost Cause revisionism.

The Southern States were fighting to keep slavery and they would agree to a ceasefire and to join the union if the north alllowed a constitutional amendment making this clear.

However, people like Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Jackson famously said northern aggression towards the south wasn't about slavery.

So the issue seems to be obviously oversimplified in these internet and media debates.

Re: The 'Dark Ages' Weren't as Dark as We Thought

#237

Post by baud147258 » Thu, Apr 25, 2019, 12:25 PM UTC

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #190

ivanhoe wrote: post #128

Those were the dark ages because previously there was a highly developed civilization with its sophisticated culture, art, science, technology and liberties, and then the western world sunk into an era where almost all of it was temporarily forsaken. It fell into the darkness and chaos (at least from the point of people who lived in the Roman empire). Barbaric tribes raided the lands, many local wars again started si…

I agree completely. Perhaps it could be argued that the Roman Empire was simply ahead of their time, but we went from engineering marvels (of their time) such as the Roman aqueducts [1], the Pantheon [2], or the Colosseum [3], which held 50-80k spectators in 72AD, to very little of note for 100s of years following. What I find intriguing is that the Roman Empire even 'discovered' steam power in the first century [4].…

> very little of note for 100s of years following.

I'd say that the cathedrals are something of note.

Re: The 'Dark Ages' Weren't as Dark as We Thought

#238

Post by baud147258 » Thu, Apr 25, 2019, 12:41 PM UTC

ivanhoe wrote: post #128

Those were the dark ages because previously there was a highly developed civilization with its sophisticated culture, art, science, technology and liberties, and then the western world sunk into an era where almost all of it was temporarily forsaken. It fell into the darkness and chaos (at least from the point of people who lived in the Roman empire). Barbaric tribes raided the lands, many local wars again started si…

Regarding the catholic Church, one could make the argument that it helped preserve and translated Antic texts in the monasteries. And there are a few point on which society regressed in the Middle Ages: human trafficking for slavery disappeared in the Middle Ages (but not slavery, since one could argue that serfdom is a form of slavery) and reappeared in the age of enlightenment; the place of women improved during that time too.

Re: The 'Dark Ages' Weren't as Dark as We Thought

#239

Post by throw0101a » Thu, Apr 25, 2019, 2:30 PM UTC

DavidSJ wrote: post #211

wallace_f wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I suspect it will die a slow death, just like the 'The Civil War wasn't about slavery' schtick. The dark ages I seem to have a more-clear picture of: derth of historical record, rise of Christianity, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, technological progress, and unfortunate disease, all each contributed, and amalgamated into the public conscious of defining the era as 'dark.' The civil war thing is really confusing…

The states' rights narrative isn't recent, but my understanding is that it's a very selective reading of history that ignores many of the stated rationales and events leading up to and throughout the war. Yes, war is complicated and slavery wasn't the only factor, but I understand it to have been the predominant one. Remember that the back-and-forth over federalism and states' rights has been ongoing since forever, a…

> Yes, war is complicated and slavery wasn't the only factor, but I understand it to have been the predominant one.

From Mississippi's declaration of secession:

> Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.

* https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declarati...

Doing a Ctrl-F and searching for "slavery" gives quite a few complaints (by most of the states) against the Federal government and the North on the subject.

Re: The 'Dark Ages' Weren't as Dark as We Thought

#240

Post by ivanhoe » Thu, Apr 25, 2019, 3:11 PM UTC

baud147258 wrote: post #238

ivanhoe wrote: post #128

Those were the dark ages because previously there was a highly developed civilization with its sophisticated culture, art, science, technology and liberties, and then the western world sunk into an era where almost all of it was temporarily forsaken. It fell into the darkness and chaos (at least from the point of people who lived in the Roman empire). Barbaric tribes raided the lands, many local wars again started si…

Regarding the catholic Church, one could make the argument that it helped preserve and translated Antic texts in the monasteries. And there are a few point on which society regressed in the Middle Ages: human trafficking for slavery disappeared in the Middle Ages (but not slavery, since one could argue that serfdom is a form of slavery) and reappeared in the age of enlightenment; the place of women improved during th…

Church also played important role as a base for scholars, giving smart people the basic education and a chance to live without having to work hard to survive, so they had time to study and learn and think. However, in the beginning monasteries did preserve some knowledge, but severely filtered and censored selection. Also there wasn't that many books there as one might think. When Toledo fell back into the hands of Christians in 11th century its library had (significantly) more books than all of the West Europe together. Only after that the effort on translating books really took off, the first Universities started forming, and the shapes of new civilization started to take shape again.